Moderators

My name is URL wrote: »

Well the most obvious are the petty grammar Nazism which add nothing to the discussion.

I saw some posts which I took as light-hearted banter - certainly nothing I'd consider "disgraceful".

Then there's the continued underhanded jibes and attempts at demeaning another user's position by mentioning all sort of outlandish conspiracy theories which have nothing to do with the point at hand.

On the contrary, conspiracy theories go to the heart of the topic. demonspawn posted about conspiracy theories in the Politics forum - he claims he didn't, but the moderators and admins disagree - so what would be achieved by not discussing conspiracy theories?

My name is URL wrote: »

Well the most obvious are the petty grammar Nazism which add nothing to the discussion. Then there's the continued underhanded jibes and attempts at demeaning another user's position by mentioning all sort of outlandish conspiracy theories which have nothing to do with the point at hand.

If the latter is a reference to my reference to chemtrails in the discussion with demonspawn, I'm reinforcing the point that demonspawn is a conspiracy theorist (see his contributions to the Chemtrails thread, for example). His contributions in the Politics forum have been conspiracy theories, not politics, and that's the basic problem here.

I'm not objecting to people putting forward conspiracy theories, or trying to prevent demonspawn from posting on boards - but we have a Conspiracy Theories forum, and that's where what he wants to post should be posted (although frankly he's being so bolshy there that he'll probably wind up banned from that forum as well), because it's not politics.

His claim that the WTO is engaged on a war on the free peoples of the world, or the third world, or whoever, is a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy theory because the very existence of such a "violent conflict" is something that would only be accepted by a small number of people. It forms no part of the WTO's declared remit, it forms no part of the news about the WTO, it forms no part of any public debate about the WTO, and there is no visible evidence that the WTO has acted directly in any violent conflict - it is, in other words, a "secret war" that is kept secret by being a conspiracy.

That's why the video is supposed to be disturbing - because it's supposed to "disturb people's conceptions".

In turn, the view that the purpose of the EU is to give Europe clout in this "secret war" is therefore clearly a conspiracy theory about the EU - that it doesn't have its stated purpose, but rather a dark and sinister intent which is kept - again - secret from the public, but must be known to insiders. Again, how is that not a conspiracy theory? Never mind whether it's right or not, never mind whether it's "nutty" or not - it is a conspiracy theory, because it requires that the EU is a conspiracy.

And conspiracy theories, by their nature, are unprovable - because, well, they're conspiracies. Any evidence that's missing has been covered up, or suppressed, that's why there's no evidence, etc. Makes for a fun debate, but it's not politics, and it doesn't belong in the Politics forum. It's fine in CT, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

My name is URL

I'm not trying to stand by his claim that the video was not one of a CT. I'm merely pointing out the fact that there's no need to mention other theories to support your position on removing the video or closing the thread. Shouldn't that discussion be taking place in HD anyway? =p

I'm not taking any side of the arguement really, all I've been doing here is trying to stop people ganging up on either a single user (who has been civil, in fairness) or a single forum. I'll stop now because it's dragging things out more than they need to be.

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm not trying to stand by his claim that the video was not one of a CT. I'm merely pointing out the fact that there's no need to mention other theories to support your position on removing the video or closing the thread. Shouldn't that discussion be taking place in HD anyway? =p

I'm not taking any side of the arguement really, all I've been doing here is trying to stop people ganging up on either a single user (who has been civil, in fairness) or a single forum. I'll stop now because it's dragging things out more than they need to be.

As I said, though, I brought it in as part of my claim to view the material demonspawn posts as being CT rather than politics, and I do think it supports that view - however, it may well be an unnecessary piece of supporting evidence. Originally, that point was aimed purely at demonspawn rather than anyone else reading the thread, which is why it was phrased the way it was.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yitzhak Rabin

Scofflaw wrote: »

His claim that the WTO is engaged on a war on the free peoples of the world, or the third world, or whoever, is a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy theory because the very existence of such a "violent conflict" is something that would only be accepted by a small number of people. It forms no part of the WTO's declared remit, it forms no part of the news about the WTO, it forms no part of any public debate about the WTO, and there is no visible evidence that the WTO has acted directly in any violent conflict - it is, in other words, a "secret war" that is kept secret by being a conspiracy.

I'll admit I haven't watched this video you are talking about (because the post was deleted) But it doesn't sound drastically removed from mainstream debate about the WTO.

For example, Joseph Stiglitz, a economic nobel prize winner, and former director of the IMF, is highly critical of the WTO practices. He essentially charges them with ruining third world economies in order to advance the finacial gain of some of the more powerful corporations.
He is far more articulate than I am, so you can read what I am talking about in his book "Globalisation and its discontents

Or there are a few of his talks on youtube.

So if a nobel prize winner, and one of the most cited economic academics is talking about it, then it is far from CT.

yekahs wrote: »

I'll admit I haven't watched this video you are talking about (because the post was deleted) But it doesn't sound drastically removed from mainstream debate about the WTO.

For example, Joseph Stiglitz, a economic nobel prize winner, and former director of the IMF, is highly critical of the WTO practices. He essentially charges them with ruining third world economies in order to advance the finacial gain of some of the more powerful corporations.
He is far more articulate than I am, so you can read what I am talking about in his book "Globalisation and its discontents

Or there are a few of his talks on youtube.

So if a nobel prize winner, and one of the most cited economic academics is talking about it, then it is far from CT.

You can see the video here.

What Stiglitz is saying is quite probably the case, but that's not the point at issue, which is demonspawn's characterisation of the EU as founded in order to give Europe more power in the "violent struggle" the WTO is engaged in.

Stiglitz is making an ordinary political case, which is that the WTO tends to represent the interests of large corporate lobbies through the actions of the governments most influential in it, which is almost certainly going to be the case, although unlikely to be the whole story. Had the thread been about the WTO, then such a video, while still being propagandist (in the technical sense of being one-sided and using emotive material rather than dry facts) and tilted in the direction of NWO conspiracy, would at least have been relevant. As it was, where it was, it was simply a conspiracy theory about the EU, and the "supporting evidence" was entirely irrelevant even to that claim.

Again, this is something that people often use as an argument for some conspiracy theory or other - "but the Bilderberg Group is real!" or "but there is a public debate about whether Obama's a secret Muslim". The answer is that conspiracy theories certainly generate discussion, the objects of them are often real people and organisations, and the discussions often have political consequences, but that doesn't make the theories themselves any more real than The Secret Protocols of the Elders of Zion were.

To pick a less immediately contentious subject - a scientific discussion about the reality of climate change is also outside the remit of the Politics forum, because it's not politics, it's science. The difference, I suppose, is that nobody really objects to being told that their contribution is scientific, whereas people apparently do object to being told that their contribution is a conspiracy theory - and maybe there is an implicit judgement in the name. Short of renaming "Conspiracy Theories" to "Alternative Politics, History and Science", I'm not sure what can be done about that - and I doubt that would help either, really, since I suspect people would still object to being told their contributions are better suited to the "alternative" forum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Overheal

I'm losing you Scofflaw. World Trade Organization is a real thing; Theres no mention here of Masonic or Megalomaniacal plots here.

I've never read into the NWO CT until last night and its all rather.. well, detailed and colorful. But, aside from the CT, I have always viewed that Globalisation is inevitable, as Information Technology advances and colonisation becomes possible.

I don't think Globalisation = NWO CT. I'm beginning to think some users have been unfairly marked as Conspiracy Theorists.

Yitzhak Rabin

Scofflaw wrote: »

You can see the video here.

Yep, have to agree thats not really relevant to the topic that was being discussed.

A week long ban was probably a bit heavy handed though, imo.

What Stiglitz is saying is quite probably the case, but that's not the point at issue, which is demonspawn's characterisation of the EU as founded in order to give Europe more power in the "violent struggle" the WTO is engaged in.

Stiglitz is making an ordinary political case, which is that the WTO tends to represent the interests of large corporate lobbies through the actions of the governments most influential in it, which is almost certainly going to be the case, although unlikely to be the whole story. Had the thread been about the WTO, then such a video, while still being propagandist (in the technical sense of being one-sided and using emotive material rather than dry facts) and tilted in the direction of NWO conspiracy, would at least have been relevant. As it was, where it was, it was simply a conspiracy theory about the EU, and the "supporting evidence" was entirely irrelevant even to that claim.

Again, this is something that people often use as an argument for some conspiracy theory or other - "but the Bilderberg Group is real!" or "but there is a public debate about whether Obama's a secret Muslim". The answer is that conspiracy theories certainly generate discussion, the objects of them are often real people and organisations, and the discussions often have political consequences, but that doesn't make the theories themselves any more real than The Secret Protocols of the Elders of Zion were.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Again, yep, I agree with what you are saying. I misunderstood what demonspawn had posted. I was expecting something a little less....well CTish.

yekahs wrote: »

A week long ban was probably a bit heavy handed though, imo.

Even taking into account prior history?

Overheal wrote: »

I'm losing you Scofflaw. World Trade Organization is a real thing; Theres no mention here of Masonic or Megalomaniacal plots here.

I've never read into the NWO CT until last night and its all rather.. well, detailed and colorful. But, aside from the CT, I have always viewed that Globalisation is inevitable, as Information Technology advances and colonisation becomes possible.

I don't think Globalisation = NWO CT.

Neither do I, but many people do. There's no requirement for Masonic or megalomaniac plots, though - the basic NWO story is that a secret war is being waged on people by oppressive governments and corporations, to bring about the subjection of people globally in a corporatist (and hence fascist) new world order, for the benefit of the global elite.

Obviously, that dovetails well with the extreme-left view of history as a class struggle, and the extreme-right view of government as a conspiracy against the people.

The dividing line is therefore a bit tricky, obviously, but essentially it's a question of agency or purpose. If your view is that the WTO tends to serve the needs of first world governments and corporations, because the former have more clout, and the latter lobby the former, then you're talking politics. If, on the other hand, your view is that the WTO serves the needs of first world corporations and governments because that was its purpose all along, and anything else it might do is window dressing, then you're talking conspiracy theory.

The former view means that the first world/corporate bias is an issue of institutional design, regulation of lobbying, etc, all of which is susceptible to change or reform with the right pressure. The latter view means that it is not at all susceptible to change or reform, because it's the basic purpose of the organisation. The former view means that political discussion serves a purpose, the latter view means that only revolution is useful. The former fits right into a politics discussion forum - the latter really doesn't.

Hope that helps a bit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yitzhak Rabin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Even taking into account prior history?

I don't know what it is, I can't see his infraction list. Has he been warned numerous times not to post Conspiracy theories in the politics forum?

Jazzy

Insect Overlord wrote: »

If you know you're not going to like it, but you read it anyway, why do you think people here should sympathise when you later complain about it?

and I said I wanted people to sympathise with me where exactly? another non-sensical post. but its a short little soundbyte that sounds like its sensible and as long as you dont think too hard about it, it will seem clever

something you can reflect onto the sections Ive said I don't like innit

yekahs wrote: »

I don't know what it is, I can't see his infraction list. Has he been warned numerous times not to post Conspiracy theories in the politics forum?

Yes, and specifically warned that continuing to do so would result in a ban, very shortly before doing so and getting a ban.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

It may be a difficult concept to grasp, but someone who disagrees with you is not ipso facto wrong, and it's pretty arrogant to think otherwise.

I couldn't agree more. Hence why I get so p1ssed off when a Mod cannot accept they may be wrong!!

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you are unhappy with the contents of a PM, you can report it and the admins will investigate.

I can't as the mod in question has threatened in a PM that if I question his actions or make any contact about it he will extend the ban. So he's shut down all avenues. You think that's reasonable? I think the person in questions has serious issues that need addressing.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Telling someone that they will be banned if they continue to break the rules isn't "killing off the debate", it's managing the forum.

I disagree. And as you say: "but someone who disagrees with you is not ipso facto wrong, and it's pretty arrogant to think otherwise".

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. Hence why I get so p1ssed off when a Mod cannot accept they may be wrong!!

That's why we have a dispute resolution procedure. It's possible that a mod may be wrong, but if the category moderators and admins agree with him or her, then it's fairly likely that the right call was made in the first place.

I can't as the mod in question has threatened in a PM that if I question his actions or make any contact about it he will extend the ban. So he's shut down all avenues. You think that's reasonable? I think the person in questions has serious issues that need addressing.

Moderators don't get to short-circuit the dispute resolution procedure like that. Please report the PMs.

I disagree. And as you say: "but someone who disagrees with you is not ipso facto wrong, and it's pretty arrogant to think otherwise".

So you think we should let people break the rules at will, with no sanction?

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's why we have a dispute resolution procedure. It's possible that a mod may be wrong, but if the category moderators and admins agree with him or her, then it's fairly likely that the right call was made in the first place. Moderators don't get to short-circuit the dispute resolution procedure like that. Please report the PMs.

Yeah. But will it earn me a permanent ban?

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you think we should let people break the rules at will, with no sanction?

No. Of course not. However the belief (and policy) that the mod is always right is not correct either.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Yeah. But will it earn me a permanent ban?

No.

No. Of course not.

Now I'm confused. Do you agree that a moderator should have the right to ban someone for repeatedly breaking the rules, or not?

However the belief (and policy) that the mod is always right is not correct either.

That's neither a belief nor a policy here.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's neither a belief nor a policy here.

Perhaps not with you oscarBravo, and please believe I'm not directing it at you. But I've had correspondence from Mods who say that their decision is final and not to be debated. Hence my assertion that they believe they are always right... even when they are wrong... And that attitiude loses them, and the whole set up, a lot of respect.

OutlawPete

oscarBravo wrote: »

I saw some posts which I took as light-hearted banter - certainly nothing I'd consider "disgraceful".

"Light hearted banter"?

Perhaps it was intended as such, but it certainly didn't read that way when I read it last night and going by the reply from the poster who was on the receiving end of it, I don't think they seen it that way either.

Feedback is an intimidating enough place without the need to belittle regular users, no matter how full of crap Moderators and Admin think they are.

If they step over the line, there is the power to ban them, there is no need to bully them (yes, I consider it bullying, which is why I used the word "disgraceful").

After the first grammar correction, that post was 'thanked' by the following users:

I would ask Moderators and Admin to take a step back and consider how you might feel if you had a post critiqued for grammar when in the middle of a debate that you were felt quite strongly about, and for it then to go on to be then 'thanked' by a who's who of Feedback regulars.

Here was the posters reply to that first grammar correction:

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Wow! Well done! You must be so pleased with yourself! Have a promotion! I note you didn't contradict my points though?

This was then met with yet another grammar correction, which in turn went on to also get 'thanked' off the thread by the feedback regs yet again:

Not once did I get the impression that the user regarded those corrections as just a bit of banter.

I'd just like to add that I have no idea who the user is, never heard of them.

I also have never had an issue with tbh, in fact on the contrary, I think he is an exceptional Moderator, from what I have witnessed in Radio and elsewhere over the years, but I just feel he let himself down on this thread.

Sorry tbh, but it's how I feel, I have no axe to grind with you.

I also like to say that I have it up to the back teeth reading about the "Don't be a Dick" philosophy.

It's repeated ad nauseum these days and I think it has gotten to the stage now where, when it keeps been said it over and over by the same user, ironically .. it is them that start to look like a bit of a 'dick'.

I mean, how often can it be said by someone, before it actually becomes a form of personal abuse.

I don't think the expression is inherently innocent or that whoever says it must be some white knight pursing the greater good.

Far from it, it carries with it the implication that whomever you are addressing, is a 'dick' or indeed, acting like one.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Perhaps not with you oscarBravo, and please believe I'm not directing it at you. But I've had correspondence from Mods who say that their decision is final and not to be debated. Hence my assertion that they believe they are always right... even when they are wrong... And that attitiude loses them, and the whole set up, a lot of respect.

I don't think that a moderator who says his decision is final is claiming to be always right. We entrust moderators with the running of their forums, and we generally rely on them to know where to draw lines. When that fails, we have the dispute resolution procedure.